Manage your subscription

Nature 2.0: Redefining conservation

FOR nearly a decade the forests of British Columbia in the far west of Canada have been ravaged by an infestation of mountain pine beetles. In March, government experts announced that the pest would soon run out of food. Now comes the hard part – restoring the devastated ecosystem without allowing the beetle to make a comeback. To add to the problem, these forests have been altered fundamentally in recent years by warmer winters, drier summers and policies to prevent fires. Returning them to their former state is not an option – instead conservationists must create forests that can cope with change.

Their challenge is far from unique. More and more these days, conservationists are struggling like harried emergency-room doctors to protect plants and animals in the face of rapid human-induced changes. This has led some to question the very essence of what they do. Conservation is, by definition, about maintaining the status quo, yet this may no longer be possible, given that pollution, climate change, exotic species invasions, extinctions and land fragmentation are altering almost every ecosystem on the planet. Earlier this year, ecologist Timothy Seastedt from the University of Colorado and colleagues urged conservationists to reassess their role. “The point is not to think outside the box but to recognise that the box itself has moved, and in the 21st century will continue to move increasingly rapidly” (Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, DOI&colon; 10.1890/070046).

Seastedt’s is just one voice in a growing chorus of scientists who are recommending a radical shift in thinking about the role of conservation. Rather than trying to preserve nature in aspic, they say we should work …